Friday, October 05, 2012

October 5, 1962, the first James Bond movie, Dr. No, was released. I love the James Bond films and can't wait for the latest starring Daniel Craig, Skyfall.

It's my favorite franchise of all the franchise films. You can have the Rockys and the Supermans and Batmans and all the rest. Just give me the James Bond films.

And speaking of giving . . .

It's Friday so it's time for Idiot of the Week. I would love to give it to the idiot in court this week who kept clicking his damn pen over and over and over. He stopped only when the judge came in. But it was irritating as hell and he knew it and did it to be irritating.

But I'll not pick on idiotic prosecutors no matter how rude and idiotic they are.

Instead, I'll pick on the bitchy.

Barack gets idiot of the week.

He should have nailed it down with the debate; however, he really drove it home by bringing on the bitchy after the debate. Don't you love all his Big Bird one liners?

Friday,
October 5, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, the Islamic State of Iraq
claims credit for recent violence, a call is made for provincial
elections to be held in April, France calls out the executions in Iraq
(102 so far this year), Senators Patty Murray and Carl Levin call on the
VA and DoD to work together to address disability evaluations, Ms. magazine gears up for its 40th anniversary, and more.

Starting
in the US with veterans news. Senator Patty Murray is the Chair of the
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Her office notes:

(Washington,
D.C.) – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Chairman of the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee, joined with Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the CommitteeonArmed Services,
in sending a letter to the VA and DoD Deputy Secretaries requesting
that the Departments work more closely together, as true partners and
with greater involvement from senior leaders, to improve the IDES
process. The letter also calls on the Departments to set a definitive
timeline for completing the review in order to implement meaningful
changes. The requests stem from issues identified during GAO's
recently completed investigation into IDES.

"I
am not convinced the Departments have implemented a disability
evaluation process that is truly transparent, consistent, or
expeditious. Getting this right is a big challenge – but it's one that
we must overcome," said Senator Murray. "I've seen the impacts of a
broken system – whether it's from a wrong diagnosis, an improper
decision, or never-ending wait times. When the system doesn't work
accurately and quickly, or when servicemembers can't get a proper mental
health evaluation or diagnosis, it means they are not getting the care
they need and they are not moving on to civilian life. While DoD and VA
are at a critical juncture, I am confident that by working as true
partners and committing to real, meaningful changes, the Departments can
improve the system for the thousands of men and women who will be
transitioning in the next couple of years."

"I
am convinced that the DoD/VA Integrated Disability Evaluation System
can be improved to better address the needs of our wounded, ill, and
injured service members," said Senator Levin. "This system is too
complex, takes far too long, and still has an adversarial aspect that
our service members should not have to endure. It will take a concerted
effort by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans
Affairs, working together, to bring about needed improvements."

The full text of the letters follows:

October 4, 2012

The Honorable Ashton B. Carter

Deputy Secretary of Defense

1010 Defense Pentagon, 3E944

Washington, DC 20301

The Honorable W. Scott Gould

Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20420

Dear Secretary Carter and Secretary Gould:

Essential
to the effort of improving the transition process for separating
servicemembers is overcoming the challenges confronting the Integrated
Disability Evaluation System (IDES). Earlier this year, as part of our
Committees' ongoing oversight of IDES, the Veterans' Affairs Committee
held a hearing examining the multiple challenges servicemembers still
face while navigating this joint program. As was made very clear at that
hearing, real improvements could only happen with the "total
engagement, cooperation and support of all senior leaders at both
Departments …"

Indeed,
the ongoing dialogue and Secretary Carter's July 2, 2012, letter to
Chairman Murray underscored this very point, affirming the Department of
Defense's commitment "to work closely with the Department of Veterans
Affairs to examine ways to improve timeliness and effectiveness of the
system …" Yet despite the importance of this work, and the Departments'
repeated assurances of promising results and progress made, reality has
yet to match rhetoric.

It
is because of this clear and urgent need for total engagement,
cooperation, and true partnership between the Departments that we write
to you regarding the recently released GAO report, Military Disability
System, Improved Monitoring Needed to Better Track and Manage
Performance. Discussing how to overcome the challenges facing the
system, GAO recommended that VA and DoD "work together to develop
timeframes for completing the IDES business process review and
implementing any resulting recommendations."

A
timely business process review has the potential to help the
Departments analyze each phase of the disability evaluation review
process and identify areas where greater coordination and integration
between the Departments is appropriate. Such a review can only be
successful if the Departments undertake it in a truly collaborative way,
evaluating their respective business processes in the context of what
is necessary for an integrated system. Further, any such effort must
have clear goals and timelines. So while both Departments concurred with
the GAO recommendation, the response from the Department of Veterans
Affairs was particularly troubling:

Although
the Department of Defense (DoD) has been leading the business process
review efforts described in this report, the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) has provided input and support to promote these efforts and
will continue to do so to the extent possible. At this time, the full
scope or current status of these efforts has not been disclosed to VA.
As such, VA recommends that developing timeframes for completion of
these efforts should be deferred to DoD.

This
response makes clear that true collaboration between the Departments on
the business process review has yet to occur. Surely, then, the answer
cannot be to drive the Departments further apart by deferring all
planning to the Department of Defense. Therefore, we are writing to
request from you not only a timeline for completion of the review and
implementation of any recommendations, but also that you make this
review a truly joint, collaborative effort to improve a broken system.
We also ask that you detail the steps you will take to personally ensure
the Departments work together as partners in reforming this system and
in addressing other joint challenges. As the Deputy Secretaries of your
Departments, your leadership is critical in order to create meaningful
change for our servicemembers and veterans.

We
remain committed to working with you to address the challenges
confronting this system, but further delay and a lack of meaningful
cooperation is unacceptable and risks jeopardizing the Departments'
ability to achieve a truly integrated disability evaluation system that
works. Thank you for your attention to this letter and for all that you
do on behalf of our servicemembers and veterans.

Still on violence, AP notes
that the Islamic State of Iraq has posted a message claiming credit for
the attack on the Tikrit prison last week that left many dead and
injured and resulted in a large number of prison escapees who still
remain at large. From the September 27th snapshot:

The latest day's violence includes a prison attack BBC News reports assailants using bombs and guns attacked a Tikrit prison. AFP quotes
a police Lieutenant Colonel stating, "A suicide bomber targeted the
gate of the prison with a car bomb and gunment then assaulted the
prison, after which they killed guards" and a police Colonel stating,
"The prisoners killed one policeman and wounded (prison director)
Brigadier General Laith al-Sagmani, the gunmen took control of the
prison, and clashes are continuing." Kitabat states
two car bombs were used to blow up the entrance to the prison and gain
access and they also state 12 guards have been killed. Reports note the
riot is continuing. Alsumaria reports
four guards have died, 1 police officer and the injured include two
soldiers and the prison director al-Sagmani. There's confusion as to
whether a number of prisoners were able to escape in the early stages
after the bombing and during gunfire. Reuters goes with "dozens" escaping which is probably smarter than the hard number some are repeating. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports
5 police officers killed and another two injured -- the numbers are
going to vary until tomorrow, this is ongoing -- and state over 200
prisoners escaped with 33 of them already having been recaptured. If you
skip the English language media, what's not confusing is why it
happened and why it was able to happen. Alsumaria reports that there are
approximately 900 inmates in the prison and that many have death
sentences. Alsumaria does even more than that. It notes the recent
prison violence throughout the country and ties it into the death
sentences.

Today All Iraq News notes another escapee has been arrested and estimates 102 escaped. July 22nd,
the Islamic State of Iraq released an audio recording announcing a new
campaign of violence entitled Breaking The Walls which would include
prison breaks and killing "judges and investigators and their guards." (They also threatened to attack America on US soil.) AP notes they also claimed responsiblity for Sunday's violence:

As the month of September winds down, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes Iraq witnesses its second deadliest day of the month (September 9th was the deadliest day). BBC (link is text and video) offers,
"Civilians were among those killed and injured in the attacks around
the capital, but the aim of the attackers seems to have been to kill as
many security personnel as possible, wherever they could reach them,
says the BBC's Rami Ruhayem in Baghdad." Jamal Hashim (Xinhua) counts 34 dead and 85 injured while explaining, "In
and near the Iraqi capital, eight car bomb explosions and gunfire
attacks killed up to 25 people and wounded 59 others, according to the
police reports." Kareem Raheem, Suadad al-Salhy and Sophie Hares (Reuters) adds, "Two
more policemen were killed when a car bomb went off in the town of
Balad Ruz, 90 km (55 miles) northeast of Baghdad, and bomb planted in a
parked car in al Qaeda stronghold Mosul killed a civilian."Most reports float al Qaeda in Iraq as the culprit. The Irish Examiner quotes
MP Hakim al-Zamili who sits on the Security and Defense Committee
stating, "Al-Qaida leaders have no intention of leaving this country
or letting Iraqis live in peace. Thus, we should expect more attacks in
the near future. The situation in Iraq is still unstable ... and
repetition of such attacks shows that our security forces are still
unqualified to deal with the terrorists." If the series of assaults were
part of the Islamic State of Iraq's Breaking The Walls campaign, they
will no doubt claim credit in the next few days. July 22nd,
the Islamic State of Iraq released an audio recording announcing a new
campaign of violence entitled Breaking The Walls which would include
prison breaks and killing "judges and investigators and their guards."
(They also threatened to attack America on US soil.) They are only one
group in Iraq resorting to violence. On the continued violence, Mohammed Tawfeeq offers
this framework, "The violence comes just days after dozens of prisoners
broke out of a jail in the northern Iraqi city of Tikrit. Among those
who got out Thursday were several al Qaeda members on death row,
according to authorities. The jailbreak occurred when armed men
detonated two car bombs at the gates of Tasfirat jail. The explosions
triggered clashes with security forces."

A
large number of the escapees were death row inmates. Last month saw
protests, sit-ins and eating strikes in Iraqi prisons as prisoners
demanded the passage of an amnesty law. Such a law would mean many
behind bars would be allowed to leave and return to their families.
Nouri al-Maliki's been promising it since 2008 but it's still not been
passed. His State of Law has remained the biggest opponent to the bill.

Driven by then Justice Minister Robert Badinter's commitment and his speech to the National Assembly the law dated October 9th, 1981
abolished the death penalty in France. This law reinforced France's
longstanding efforts to promote human dignity. French law prohibits the
removal of any person to a country where they risk the death penalty.

France
has signed all international commitments on abolishing the death
penalty. Since 2007, abolishing the death penalty has been enshrined in
the French Constitution.

Al Mada reports
today on the Ministry of Human Rights declaring this week that the time
isn't right to heed the pleas of various organizations and governments
and place a moratorium on the death penalty. Of course it's not the
right time yet, they've already announced they plan to execute 200 more
people this year.

Meanwhile Alsumaria reports
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is calling for the newly appointed
Electoral Commission to get to work on preparing for the upcoming
provincial elections. (He actually stated yesterday that the Commission
should hold elections on time; however, provincial elections were
supposed to be held in March and that can't happen now so the target
date has become April.) Reuters adds
that this request comes "despite legal challenges that could end in
the dissolution of the commission." They note that the Turkman (the 9th
Commissioner added) is a woman which is a correction to what I've stated
in the September 25th snapshot. My error, my apologies, "my face is red, I stand corrected" as Prince would say ("U Got The Look"). Reuters
notes, "But the body still faces a number of legal challenges from
political groups, civil society organizations and minorities who have
lodged appeals with the Federal Court. It is not clear when the Federal
Court will rule on the appeals." The Federal Court has already stated
that one-third of the commissioners must be women. One member out of 9
is not 1/3. From the September 19th snapshot:

About
the only thing that could be passed off as 'progress' this week just
imploded. Yesterday, 8 of 9 Independent High Electoral Commission
commissioners elected. Alsumaria reported
this morning that the Federal Court says the number of commissioners
must be increased because women must make up a third of the members.
(Not one of the eight was a woman -- an oversight Iraqiya called out --
the only political bloc to publicly call that out.) Al Mada notes
that Moqtada al-Sadr's bloc was insisting yesterday that if they just
make the ninth member a Christian, they'll have all their bases
covered. The judiciary begs to differ. They're calling on members -- not
a single seat, multiple seats. That means that the Parliament either
gets very focused on this or it is highly likely that an election cannot
take place in March of 2013. It's starting to look a lot like fall 2009
in Iraq.

And that
should have been that. The law states women must make up a third of the
members. That's not something you can 'massage.' Yet Alsumaria reports
the issue is still 'can we get a Turkman on the IHEC?' as opposed to
dealing with what the law requires. Is math difficult for the Iraqi
government? Is the concept of 1/3 of the members of the IHEC being women
a word problem that's difficult to solve?

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani gets cozier with Iran. Iran's Press TV reports
that he met with Iran's Minister of Defense Ahmad Vahidi and the two
gabbed over shared hatred of Israel with Jalal declaring "terrorism in
the region would serve the interests of the Israeli regime." Iran's
Minister of Defense also met with Saadoun al-Dulaimi from Iraq's
Ministry of Defense. Prensa Latina reports,
"Iran and Iraq formalized the establishment of the military cooperation
in an agreement signed by the defense ministers of the two neighboring
countries, it was released here today by a source close to the
negotiations." Aswat al-Iraq notes
that Nouri met "on Wednesday with Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Wahidi
[discussing] cooperation between the two countries to strengthen
security and stability to combat terrorism, according to a statement
released from al-Maliki's office." If you're thinking, "That's a lot of
people meeting over one deal," you do realize why that is, don't you?

Some
outlets wrongly identify Saadoun al-Dulaimi as the Minister of Defense.
He is not the Minister of Defense. Iraq has no person in that post.
Nouri al-Maliki was required, by the Constitution, to name a Cabinet in
30 days to become prime minister (a prime minister-designate is named
and then given 30 days to form a cabinet -- that means 30 days to
nominate and get the nominees confirmed by Parilament). That's not a
partial Cabinet. If it were a partial Cabinet, it wouldn't be in the
Constitution. If you could name half or even just 1 minister and say,
"I'll fill in the rest later," it wouldn't be in the Constitution. If
this is confusing to you -- and Nouri's online lover, the blond
European, has never grasped this -- you can refer to Article 76 of the
Iraqi Constitution and pay special attention to the second clause which
reads: "The Prime Minister-designate shall undertake the naming of the
members of his Council of Ministers within a period not to exceed
thirty days from the date of his designation." That's the Cabinet.

Not
a portion of it, not two, not three, the full Cabinet. Nouri was
supposed to have formed a Cabinet -- a full Cabinet -- before the end of
December 2010. He failed to do that. He refused to nominate anyone for
the post of Minister of Defense or Minister of the Interior or Minister
of National Security. Just this summer, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed,
"Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting
power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions,
including the ministers of defense, interior and national security,
while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support." Back in
December 2010 and Janaury 2011, the press assured us that the thug would
nominate people to fill those posts in a matter of weeks. That did not
happen. Back then, Iraqiya labled it a power grab and said Nouri had no
intention of nominating people to the posts. They argued it was a
power grab. Clearly, Iraqiya was correct.

In
Iraq, the Cabinet is different than in the United States. In the US,
let's use the current administration, Barack Obama was sworn in as
President of the United States in January 2009. He was under no
Constitutional obligation to name his Secretaries within 30 days. Once
he nominated them, the nominations went to the Congress. This is true in
Iraq, the prime minister nominates someone and the Parliament votes on
whether or not the person will become a Minister.

Here's
the difference that matters. If Barack tomorrow was bothered by Hillary
Clinton's performance as Secretary of State, he would convey that to
her and ask for her resignation. Hillary would tender her resignation.
She's not obligated to but that's what she'd do and what is done. In
Iraq, these Ministers have tremendous power -- more than Secretaries in
the US -- and if Nouri's unhappy with one, oh well. He can ask them to
resign but that's all he can do. And they don't have to resign. Deputy
Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq is a member of Iraqiya and a Sunni. An
ongoing political stalemate turned into a political crisis in December
2011 when Nouri wanted al-Mutlaq gone. al-Mutlaq, who had told CNN that
Nouri was becoming a dictator (the incident that outraged Nouri), didn't
want to step down. And Nouri couldn't force him. To remove al-Mutlaq,
Nouri would need Parliament to be in agreement with him. Nouri could not
get the votes needed to strip al-Mutlaq of his post so, after several
months, he finally dropped the issue.

This
difference means that, for example, the Minister of the Interior can
deploy the federal police as he or she sees fit. If Nouri doesn't like
the way the Minister does that, he can argue, he can whine but he can't
remove the Minister unless Parliament is in agreement with him. This
allows the ministers to have not just power but also security. This
means, ideally, that they serve the Iraqi people and not which ever
person occupies the post of prime minister.

If
you don't have a real minister (one confirmed by Parliament), they have
no protection. Nouri can call them 'acting' all he wants, but he
retains control of the ministry -- in violation of the Constitution. He
can name Mohammed Tawfeeq as Acting Minister of the Interior but
Mohammed would have no power or independence. As 'acting' minister, he
has no real power and does what Nouri tells him or Nouri strips him of
the 'acting' post ('acting' posts do not exist in the Constitution).
That's why it matters.

Again,
Barack Obama is the current president of the United States and was
sworn in January 2009. Nouri was named prime minister-designate in
November 2010, the following year. During all that time, the three
securities ministries have had no ministers. Imagine if Barack had
refused to name a Secretary of Defense by the end of 2009? He would be a
laughingstock. In fact, the ridicule and scorn over this would not have
been pushed back a year. With various wars during his four years, he
would be expected to have a Secretary of Defense. Yet Nouri has been
allowed a pass. Violence has increased in 2012, up from 2011. And the
security ministries remain without leaders.

Nouri
is an incompetent. That was obvious during his first term as prime
minister (2006 through 2010). He wasn't the choice of the Iraqi
Parliament (the Parliament is supposed to elect the prime
minister-designate). He was the choice of the White House. Bully Boy
Bush occupied the White House back then. Nouri was so ineffective,
please remember, that the Bush White House was forced to draw up a set
of "benchmarks" that both Bush and Nouri signed off on. These would be
measures by which the US Congress could determine whether or not
progress was taking place in Iraq (which would effect Congressional
funding of the Iraq operation). This was in 2007. Nouri failed
repeatedly.

The White House spin became, "Oh,
he didn't do this benchmark, but he got started on it." No, these were
benchmarks that, in a year's time were supposed to be accomplished.

Not
only did they spin in 2008, but those benchmarks still haven't been
achieved. The oil dispute between the KRG and Nouri's Baghdad-based
central government? KRG President Massoud Barzani did not sign an
agreement with the White House to come up with a national oil and gas
law. Nouri did. If Nouri's not happy with the contracts that the KRG is
signing, that's on Nouri. If he'd passed an oil and gas law in 2007 or
2008 or 2009 or . . . then there would be no problem today.

The
elections -- provincial planned for next year, parliamentary for the
year after -- are going to expose another failed benchmark/promise.
American L. Paul Bremer implemented de-Ba'athification in Iraq. The Iraq Inquiry in London, chaired by John Chilcot,
heard public testimony from one British official after another --
executive branch official, military official and MI6 -- that
de-Ba'athification was a huge mistake. Under former president Saddam
Hussein, the Ba'ath Party was the defacto party in Iraq. Governement
jobs and promotions could result from party i.d., from being in the same
political party that Saddam Hussein headed. The US-invasion toppled
Saddam Hussein's government and would then oversee the execution of
Hussein. That apparently wasn't enough. It was important to drive people
out of government office, out of civil service, out of the military,
out of the police, etc. You are talking a large number of people.
Among other things, they lost jobs.

Bremer
oversaw the White House's de-Ba'athification plan. Bremer maintains
that, Colin Powell has whispered to his friends in the press that Bremer
was acting on his own -- the public record, including the testimony by
British officials in Iraq when de-Ba'athification began, does not
support Powell's whispers. But that's how much of a disaster
de-Ba'athification is seen as -- Colin Powell's worked the press for
over six years now to make sure he didn't get blamed for the policy and
to try to argue that there was a winnable war in Iraq but it got screwed
up by Bremer and others. This pro-war denial is also seen in Charles
Ferguson's ridiculous and reactionary 'documentary.'

The
White House benchmarks of 2007 included what is best explained as
de-de-Ba'athification. This would mean bringing Iraqis back into the
process -- especially but not just Sunnis. This benchmark was also not
achieved. But a bill was proposed!!! Once upon a time! So that's partial
victory!!! Right? Wrong.

By
not completing that in 2007 or 2008, you ended up with the Justice and
Accountability Commission of 2010. They had no mandate. Parliament
believed they had termed out of office (because they had). But Ahmed
Chalabi and others suddenly show up and start declaring who can run for
office and who cannot. Saleh al-Mutlaq, the current Deputy Prime
Minister, was among those who was not allowed to run for office. He was
labeled a Ba'athist.

This
commission was used before to influence results (and to target Iraqiya)
and it will most likely resurface in the planned 2014 parliamentary
elections.

The last parliamentary elections
were in March 2010. Nouri didn't win those elections. His political
slate, State of Law, came in second. The winner in those elections was
the newly created Iraqiya headed by Ayad Allawi.

In
the 2010, campaign, Maliki's party was primarily a sectarian political
list of Shiite candidates with a few Sunni political figureheads. In
contrast, Allawi's political coalition was a cross-sectarian list. While
Allawi is a Shiite, he headed a party consisting of Sunni political
leaders from western and northern Iraq and some Shiite politicians who
believed it was time to move beyond sectarian politics if Iraq is to
achieve national unity.

In Iraq's short
history of free elections, Shiite candidates have a demographic
advantage. Shiites are approximately 60% of the population, and Iraqis
voted almost exclusively along sectarian lines in the 2005 national
elections and the 2009 provincial vote. Maliki also had a media
advantage. The state-run national news network did not accept paid
campaign advertisements, but freely broadcast extensive reports of
Maliki's election appearances and campaign speeches in evening news
bulletins. On the eve of the vote, state TV broadcast a documentary
highlighting the Prime Minister's visit to security checkpoints around
the capital. Maliki is widely credited with an improvement in the
day-to-day security in the capital and in the south, but his
pre-election inspection of the security checkpoints was seen as a long
campaign ad. According to domestic media monitorying reports of
state-runtelevision, Al-Iraqiya, Maliki's political coalition received
by far the "highest positive coverage" when compared with all other
political parties in the campaign.

When it
came to the vote, Allawi demonstrated that sectarian voting patterns
could be broken. A small percentage of Shiites voted for a party that
included Sunnis on the ticket which helped deliver the two-seat lead.
Prime Minister Maliki charged widespread fraud and demanded a recount to
prevent "a return to violence." He pointedly noted that he remained the
commander in chief of the armed forces.

Was
Maliki threatening violence? Was he using the platform of state-run
media to suggest that his Shiite-dominated government would not
relinquish power to a Sunni coaltion despite the election results?

What
the thug was doing didn't matter because he had the backing of the
White House. Nouri dug his heels in for 8 months refusing to allow the
process to go forward. This would have been avoided if a United Nations
caretaker government had been put in place as many governments
(including the French government) favored but Barack Obama and his
administration killed that idea. They wanted Nouri.

When
the voters didn't name your party the winner and the Constitution's
clear on what happens and it doesn't benefit you, what do you do?

As Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame,
Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in
2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be
honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable
judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the
most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new government,
it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise that might
have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian government."

They
didn't just back Nouri in the stalemate (which included the White House
and State Dept spinning the press), they also staked the US
government's reputation on a contract.

Here's
why you should never be afraid of the power of "no." Whether you're on a
date and just don't find the other person that interesting, whether
some suit is trying to get you to sign a contract that doesn't include
the details you have asked for, whether it's a rival swearing to later
meet you half-way, you say "no" to protect yourself.

If
Democrats had a spine during the Bush years, the US would be better off
today and the Iraq War might not have even happened. If they had used
the power of no, they could have accomplished so much even when they
were the minority party in both houses. Instead, they were scared little
rabbits, too meek to stand up.

The
Republicans have stood up to Barack. And you get men like Tom Hayden
(who has never liked it when a woman has said no to him ) whining and
screeching that Republicans are "obstructionists!" No, they're sticking
to their beliefs (something Democrats should be trying not insulting).

When
Iraq managed to set the record for longest time after elections with no
government formed (eight months but that record's now been broken),
various Iraqis were falling prey to the cry of 'be mature' and 'do
what's right for Iraq' and countless other nonsense.

If
Ayad Allawi, for example, truly believed that the best thing for Iraq
was for him to be prime minister or someone else from Iraqiya to be
prime minister, he should have stuck to that and damn the public
scoldings.

But the
White House and the State Dept were working the press to soften up
resistance on the part of politicians while at the same time they were
brokering a contract. The contract became known as the Erbil Agreement
(because that's where it was signed). The Erbil Agreement was a contract
that would allow Iraqiya to have, for example, the leadership role on a
newly created National Security Commission -- an independent one at
that. The Kurds? They would get Article 140 finally implemented.
(Article 140 of the Constitution determines the fate of oil-rich Kirkuk
-- will it be part of the Kurdistan Regional Government or part of the
Baghdad-based central government -- and was supposed to be

implemented
no later than the end of 2007. That deadline is written into the
Constitution. But Nouri, in his first term, refused to implement Article
140.) There were various things that Nouri agreed to do provided he had
a second term as prime minister. He signed off on the Erbil Agreement.
The leader of all the political blocs did.

Nouri used the contract to get his second term and then trashed the contract.

The
US government's word is mud in Iraq because of the Erbil Agreement. As
Iraq gets closer and closer with Iran, understand that. The US
government, this is the White House, this is at the very top, assured
various political leaders that the Erbil Agreement (a) was a binding,
legal contract and (b) that the US would ensure it was honored. It was
obvious to most that it wasn't being honored as soon as Jalal Talabani
named Nouri prime minister-designate. That's when Nouri announced that
the independent security commission would have to wait. This is what
prompted, in the first real meeting of Parliament after the 2010
elections (eight months after) most Iraqiya members to walk out.

Nouri
trashed the Erbil Agreement. Month after month went by in 2011 without
it being implemented. Finally, in the summer of 2011 Political Stalemate
II begins as Moqtada al-Sadr ('rebel cleric' -- a Shi'ite with large
support that only grows greater when he is attacked or when he draws a
wall between himself and Nouri), the Kurds and Iraqiya begin calling for
Nouri to return to and implement the Erbil Agreement.

He
refuses. Fall 2011 sees Sunnis rounded up in mass arrests. There's
(false) talk that all US troops will be out by the end of December 2011.
The country is very nervous about what might happen next. As most (not
all) US troops leave, Nouri announces he wants al-Mutlaq stripped of his
post. He also swears out an arrest warrant for Vice President Tareq
al-Hashemi. Tareq is Sunni and Iraqiya. This is when the stalemate
becomes a crisis.

By April, major names are in
Erbil for a big meet up. They include Jala Talabani (President of Iraq),
Allawi, KRG President Massoud Barzani, Moqtada and others. They
announce they will move towards a no-confidence vote in Nouri.

But
Moqtada repeatedly stresses that Nouri can stop that vote at any point
by returning to the Erbil Agreement. Nouri refuses to honor the
contract. Then, in May, as they have the votes necessary to vote Nouri
out, Jalal stabs everyone in the back and invents new rules. Jalal then
high tails it to Germany for 'a life threatening medical procedure' (in
reality, knee surgery). He hides out in Germany for months and finally
returns to Iraq at the mid-way point last month.

Since
his return, Jalal has been on a 'listening' tour to try to determine
the problem. The problem is and has been clear: the Erbil Agreement is
not being honored. Alsumaria notes he met with Ayad Allawi, head of Iraqiya. Al Mada reports State of Law is calling for the National Conference to be held on the 15th.

Al Mada notes
a group of women demonstrated in Iraq on Baghdad's Mutanabi Street -- a
large number of women from the picture -- to salute Iraq women and the
pioneering Iraqi women of the 20th century feminist movement. The women
noted the widespread discrimination against women (illegal under the
country's Constitution). Dr. Buthaina Sharif made remarks about how the
rights of women are a cause for all men and women to share. Dr. Sharif
saluted Paulina Hassoun who, in 1923, edited Iraq's first feminist
magazine Layla ("On the way to
the revival of the Iraqi woman"). She spoke to Iraq's long history of
social progress in the 20th century and decried the violence aimed at so
many women today. (The UN estimates that one out of five Iraqi women is
a victim of domestic violence.)

Issa's desire to move swiftly forward has led to increased tensions
within the oversight committee. Democrats feel as though they are being
left in the dark as Issa and Utah Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz take
the lead. One staffer said Maryland Democrat Elijah Cummings, the
ranking member on the oversight committee, was unaware that Issa had
sent a letter to the State Department calling for a hearing and more
details about security in Benghazi until he read about it in news
reports.[PHOTOS: Irate Protesters Storm U.S. Embassy in Yemen]"While I fully support careful, responsible, and robust congressional
oversight, I do have concerns about rushing to hold a public hearing
based on incomplete information if the purpose is to meet some arbitrary
political timetable," Cummings says. "On such a critically important
issue, I believe we should proceed in a bipartisan and responsible
manner by gathering the facts before drawing any public conclusions."The majority office says that Cummings is the one engaging in election-year politicking."Ranking Member Cummings would clearly prefer to delay the
investigation of the serious security failures in Libya until after the
election," says Ali Ahmad, a spokesman for the committee. "Moving
swiftly to investigate facts and hear from relevant witnesses, however,
is crucial to uncovering the truth."

We need to know the truth. And I don't know how you can review CNN's timeline of all that's taken place since the September 11, 2012 sttack on the US Consulate in Libya and not feel like the White House has attempted to deliberately mislead.

And only today did the FBI team arrive in Libya. Apparently, they'd never heard of airplane and taveled via 'motor car.' Barbara Starr (CNN) reports:

The failure of
investigators to visit the site in the immediate aftermath of the attack
has raised questions about the integrity of the FBI investigation and
concerns that sensitive documents may have been left unsecured.

Three days after the
attack, CNN Senior Correspondent Arwa Damon discovered Stevens' journal
during a visit to the unguarded, abandoned compound.

This week, a Washington
Post reporter visiting the site found sensitive documents, including
personnel records of Libyans who had been contracted to provide
security, emergency evacuation protocols and details of U.S. weapons
collection efforts.

Security. If our intelligence community had suspicions that Al
Qaeda and other armed radical militias were operating in Libya, and
posed a threat to our diplomats and facilities, why didn’t the State
Department arrange for adequate security?My apartment building, in a good neighborhood in New York City, had
more security on September 11 than our ambassador, who was a marked man,
in one of the most dangerous places on the planet. We need to know why.There were no Marine guards at the Benghazi Consulate. Yet there had
been a recent spate of bombings against Americans, and an IED attack in
June that damaged the entrance to the Consulate.Ambassador Stevens feared he was on an Al Qaeda hit list. We know
this because his diary was recovered in the wreckage of the Benghazi
Consulate by the media. Indeed, nearly three weeks after the attack the
FBI and other US personnel haven’t been near the Consulate because it’s
still not safe. If the area is too dangerous today, why did we think it
was safe three weeks ago?

Amen to that. If it wasn't safe to visit now, why was it safe to be at the Consulate last month? That makes no sense. So much of it makes no sense. And that's why we should all be glad that there is a serious House investigation going on.

Thursday,
October 4, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Iraq executes 6 more
people, Jalal continues his listening tour, Barack Obama's campaign
accuses Mitt Romney of wanting to go back into Iraq, Congress calls out
the administration's refusal to follow the law (with regard to military
purchases), tensions continue between Turkey and Iraq, and more.

AMYGOODMAN: As Democracy Now! expands the debate, we put that question, "how would you create more jobs," to the Green Party's Dr. Jill Stein.

DR. JILLSTEIN: Thank you, and thank you so much for expanding this debate tonight, as you so often do, Amy, here on Democracy Now!
So, first just want to acknowledge the crisis is not getting better. We
still very much still have a crisis in our economy. One out of two
Americans are in poverty or living at a low income and heading towards
poverty. About 25 million people are either jobless or working in jobs
that do not pay living wages. There are millions of people who've lost
their homes, approximately 8 million. There is no end in sight to the
foreclosure crisis. And we have an entire generation of students who are
effectively indentured servants, who are trapped in unforgiving loans
and do not have the jobs to pay them back with unemployment and
underemployment rate of about 50% among our young people.

So,
we very much need new solutions. What we hear, really, from both Barack
Obama and Mitt Romney are essentially a rehash of where we have been
not only for the past four years, but certainly for the eight years
before that. We're hearing more about deregulating business and Wall
Street, as if we didn't have enough problem from that already. We're
hearing more about more tax breaks for the wealthy, and we've seen tax
breaks continue over the past many decades across all sectors of the tax
code to where the wealthy are not paying their fair share now. We're
hearing more about energy, dirty energy.

So,
we are calling for a Green New Deal modeled after the New Deal that
actually got us out of the Great Depression. They created approximately 4
million jobs in as little as two months. So, there is a lot that we can
do if we put our mind to it. We're calling for jobs created at the
level of our communities that are nationally funded and which put
decisions in the hands of the community about which kinds of jobs they
need both in the green economy and meeting their social needs, that
would be focused and controlled locally, but funded at the national
level.

ROCKYANDERSON:
Well, President Obama would like us to ignore what is happening is past
four years. Granted, he came into a tough situation, but we have to
consider that during the last 43 months we have had more than 8%
unemployment. It is the only time in this nation's history that we have
had a president that has presided even over three years of over 8%
unemployment. The fact is, that those 43 months of over 8% unemployment
during President Obama's term is four months more than all of the months
of over 8% unemployment from 1948 until President Obama's inauguration.
He talks about recovery, all the new jobs. The fact is, that in the
downturn, 60% of the jobs lost were mid skill and mid paying jobs, and
only 20% of the new jobs during the so-called recovery are of that
category; the mid skill and mid paying jobs.

Most
of the jobs are low-paying jobs, these new jobs he brags about are in
retail sales and food preparation. So, there are things that have been
proven in our history to work. We could have put in place, and it needs
to be put in immediately, a WPA
Works Progress Administration kind of program where we are investing in
the future by building up our nation's rapidly deteriorating
infrastructure, putting people to work. In the WPA
project they 8.5 million people to work. We could be putting 20 million
to 25 million people to work and making that kind of investment in our
nation's future.

We
need to renegotiate the outrageous free trade agreements and make sure
they are fair trade so that we're not discriminating against those
employers who want to hire the United States workers and also we need to
get a handle on health care costs, because there are a tremendous
competitive disadvantages because of the cost of health care in this
country.

The
same questions received real answers when the invitation list became
more inclusive. Something to remember if you watch the rest of the
debates on the corporate-sponsored, corporate-owned debates on the
corporate networks and the semi-corporate PBS.

What most Americans saw last night was the debate between Barack and Mitt only. As Ava and I noted this morning,
Governor Romney mopped the floor with President Obama -- the latter
coming off petulant and bitchy. As if to prove our point, Barack began
making comments about Big Bird today that were, yes, petulant and
bitchy. TheLos Angeles Times takes a reading of reporters and journalists (and Tom Hayden) and we'll note this from it, "Doyle McManus: Bottom line: Romney won. The question now is whether Romney can turn one good night into four good weeks." CNN and ORC International's poll found 67% of those watching the debate said Mitt won. Cindy Sheehan (Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox) offers
this analysis, "Blue Tie went first and went on a long rant on how his
presidency has basically been a failure at this, but of course, blaiming
(with some verity) the Red Tie that went before him. However, give
Blue Tie another four years with failed policies and things will get
better this time, he swears on a stack of holy Federal Reserve Notes.
("I really mean it this time, Baby"). Then Red Tie talked a lot about
"middle income" people. Both Ties talked a lot about the "Middle
Class." Well, the term "Middle Class" is a ruling class diversion
from the fact that the USA has the widest (and growing wider) income
disparity in the so-called industrial world. That's an inconvenient
fact that the Scoundrels

First,
Obama's personality. In an earlier life, I spent a lot of time studying
the psychoanalytic literature on narcissism. It was all part of a study
of canonical American poetry, where I thought that the imperial
grandiosity of the American imaginary could be illuminated by examining
its underlying narcissism. But all that is by way of saying I'm not
using this term recklessly. I think there's a lot of the narcissist
about Obama. There's something chilly and empty about him. Unlike Bill
Clinton, he doesn't revel in human company. It makes him uncomfortable.
He wants the rich and powerful to love him, but doesn't care about the
masses (unless they're a remote but adoring crowd). Many people seem to
bore him. It shows.

That's
what it's all about, isn't it? Those lady voters, and by this, oh best
beloveds, he means the former Clintonistas who were royally screwed by
Obama last time, they're too genteel for all the aggressive behavior
that Mitt displayed last night? Oh, my, I think they might have the
vapors. They're delicate, fragile flowers and unfit for such
improprieties. It's not decent! We shall whip them into a frenzy of
condemnation. We shall use their more civilized nature to reign Romney
in. He won't be allowed to do that next time, nosiree.

Was
Jim Lehrer aware that the White House is in violation of the law --
violation of the law and practice that's been in place since 1941? Was
Lehrer aware that the White House has allowed the US military to fill
their orders with Chinese goods?

An issue that some may see as minor was brought up by US House Rep Michael Michaud. I don't see it as minor.

He
reminded everyone of how there was uproar in the summer over the fact
that the American athletes at the Olympics were wearing outfits that
Americans didn't make.

Did you know our army wears uniforms that are not 100% American made?

And that brings us back to yesterday's hearing and we'll pick up with Michaud.

US
House Rep Mike Michaud: When you talk about uniforms made in the USA, I
read an article -- I left you a copy, I know you haven't had a chance
to read it yet -- but I'm not the only person who's upset with what's
happening with our military today. I was reading an article in the Air Force Times [by Jeff Schogol] where it says "Master sgt. says no to Chinese-made boots."
He was issued a pair of Chinese-made boots. He made a stink about it.
He ultimately did get American made boots. He was sent to Afghanistan.
And over in Afghanistan, he was given a uniform -- the Army Operation
Enduring Freedom camouflage uniform -- he asked for a pair of required
boots, the tan boots. Well guess what? He was issued a pair of
Chinese-made boots once again. In the article, you will see where the
Master Sgt at the end, and I would like to quote it, what the Master Sgt
said. And I quote, "This is about patriotism. This is about the Berry
Amendment set forth over 60 years ago. This is about American soldiers
wearing our country's uniform made by Americans." And I couldn't agree
more with the Master Sgt. At a time when our nation is divided and the
discourse in Washington, DC is extremely negative, it seems to me that
with the outrage of our athletes wearing Chinese-made uniforms [at the
summer Olympics] that this is one issue that we can all agree on. Even
both candidates who are running for president of the United States are
criticizing one another about not being tough on China and both
campaigns are talking about making sure more things are stamped with
"Made in the USA." Well there's a way we can get tough on China,
increase things Made in the USA and to make sure that our American
soldiers are not treated as second class citizens, that they have the
best. That's what they're fighting for, this country, United States of
America. And I find it extremely concerning because this issue is not an
issue that needs Congress to act. It's not an issue that we need a
regulatory agency to address. It's an issue that's already the law. So
my question to you is: What is the American Legion's position? Do you
believe that our soldiers who are putting their lives on the line each
and every day for us, should they be wearing clothing made in the United
States of America?

James
Koutz: The answer is yes. The American Legion believes that [stops for
applause to die down]. I'm sure the American Legion and the American
people believe that all equipment should be made in the United States of
America. And there you go again, talking about jobs. Put the Americans
to work making boots. That'll provide jobs here at home.

US
House Rep Mike Michaud: Well I want to thank you very much, National
Commander, and just for the record, I know Congressman Duncan Hunter who
is a Republican colleague from California, he and I are writing a
letter, we encourage our colleagues to sign that letter, to the
administration, requiring them to comply with the intent of the law and
it's unfortunate that we have to do that. And hopefully, we'll see some
changes in that regard.

When the
discussion is jobs and when you're speaking to the Commander-in-Chief
of the military and when the military is in violation of the Berry
Amendment and Congress is calling that out, you probably need to bring
that up in the debate. Anna Mulrine (Christian Science Monitor) reports on how veterans and veterans groups feel they were ignored in the debate last night.

After
President Barack Obama stumbled his way to a loss in the first
presidential debate on Wednesday night, Democratic National Committee
communications director Brad Woodhouse took to MSNBC to try to spin
criticism back in the direction of Mitt Romney with what appeared to be a
fabricated claim.

"He wants to go back to war in Iraq," Woodhouse said of Romney during a Thursday morning appearance on MSNBC.

The Daily Caller
remains a right-wing organ and not a news outlet. It does that, in
part, because it's to busy churning out quick 'posts' to do journalism.

If
I were a reporter covering a false charge that a candidate supposedly
wanted the US military to go back into Iraq, I think it would be
incumbent upon me to mention that the one making the charge (that would
be Barack's campaign) is actually representing the candidate who is
trying to get more US military back into Iraq.

Dar Addustour reports
on the US military that remains in Iraq -- with a headline of how the
Pentagon refuses to withdraw them -- noting that they did not leave
during the supposed full withdrawal of US forces in December 2011 and
that they have instead been working with implementing security and
assistng counter-terrorism forces. The article notes that despite a
lack of Congressional funding for October, the Pentagon has juggled
monies to find enough funds to cover the costs through January 1st. Wael Grace (Al Mada) reports
that the US Embassy inside the Green Zone is cloaked in mystery and
that no one can tell you the number of employees -- civilian or
military. Grace points out that despite the lowering of the US flag
over Baghdad in 2011 and the announcement that, after 9 years, military
operations were ending, the US government, in fact, kept US troops in
Iraq after the supposed withdrawl of December 2011. An Iraqi MP on the
Security and Defense Committee tells Grace that they are sure there is a
much larger number os US troops in the Embassy and that the Iraqi
government does not know how many US forces remain in Iraq. An MP with
Sadr's bloc says that the US military is there for logistic support but
also states that the Iraqi government has no idea of the actual number
of US troops on the ground in Iraq. The article ends reminding that
all US forces were supposed to leave Iraq at the end of 2011 . . . but
didn't. Last week, Tim Arango (New York Times) reported,
"Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could
result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on
training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to
General Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently
deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with
intelligence."

I have no idea why The Daily Caller missed that obvious point. As we wrap up the debate section and move into the Iraq section, a big thank you to Ann who helped track down debate commentaries worth including in this snapshot.

QUESTION:
I was talking to an Iraqi official about the incident of bringing the
Iranian cargo airplane, for instance, and he told me the following: That
they are cooperating – but they have requested from you, time and time
again, for logistical support, equipment, and so on, to be able to do
that, and actually, it has fallen on deaf ears. Could you tell us – and
he said that the Embassy has actually made a case before the
Administration, but nothing has come of it. Could you tell us about the
current status in a situation like this, when the Iraqis ask for aid and
equipment to conduct activities that you request them, and that is not
delivered?

MS.
NULAND: Well first, Said, let me say that, as you know, we're fully
supportive of the Iraqis asking these Iranian flights to come down, be
inspected, et cetera. I can't speak to what you're asserting, which is
that we've been asked for help and we haven't provided it. Let me check
on that. It doesn't sound right to me. Okay?

QUESTION:
Continuing with Iraq: September was probably one of the bloodiest
months of all time. Tell us about the status of your diplomatic
operations in Iraq and the status of the confirmation of Mr. Beecroft.

MS.
NULAND: Mr. Beecroft was confirmed as Ambassador a couple of weeks ago,
so he is – my understanding is he's back in Iraq, fully empowered, with
--

QUESTION: Is he in Iraq?

MS.
NULAND: My understanding is he was taking a couple days off with his
family in California, but then was headed back to Iraq. I think he's
probably arrived there. Ambassador Beecroft, we call him now. Yeah.

QUESTION: You called him that before, too. He was the Ambassador in Jordan.

MS. NULAND: Yes, of course.

That
would have been the perfect opportunity for Nuland to have credited
Senator John Kerry. She's apparently quick to call him out but not
willing to give him credit. (Kerry and the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee making clear they were willing to pull US funds from Iraq
forced Nouri al-Maliki to beging inspecting the planes headed for Iran.)

Tensions continue between the governments of Iraq and Turkey. Hurriyet Daily News notes,
"Iraq's Cabinet has recommended Parliament abrogate treaties permitting
foreign forces in the country as the Turkish government submitted a
motion to extend cross-border operations against members of the outlawed
Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)." The Tehran Times quotes
Nouri al-Maliki's spokesperson Ali al-Dabbagh stating that the Turkish
warplanes and land efforts by the Turkish military "contradicts the
principles of good neighborly relations." Namik Durukan (Al-Monitor) reminds
that Tuesday "the Iraqi cabinet decided to annul all agreements that
enabled the presence of foreign troops in Iraq. The decision will
directly affect Turkey, which has been maintaining bases in Northern
Iraq since the 1990s." Hurriyet adds:

A
verbal agreement was formed between Turkey and the Iraqi Kurds in
1995-1996, when massive joint military operations were launched by the
Turkish army and Iraqi Kurdish groups against the outlawed Kurdistan
Workers' Party (PKK), to allow Turkish forces to establish a presence in
northern Iraq. On Oct. 2, the Iraqi Cabinet condemned the Turkish
government's motion to extend cross-border operations against militants
in northern Iraq. Iraq's Cabinet suggested that Parliament should
abrogate treaties permitting foreign forces in the country, after the
Turkish government submitted a motion to extend cross-border operations
against the PKK.

Meanwhile, Alsumaria reports
that today the Ministry of Justice announced the executions by hanging
of another six people. This brings Iraq's reported total for 2012 to
102. Meanwhile the so-called Ministry of Human Rights insists it is not
the time for Iraq to implement a moratorium on the death penalty
despite international cries for just that. There are serious questions
about Iraq's justice system including the right to a fair trail and the
use of forced 'confessions.' Just the use of forced 'confessions'
should be enough to make people support a moratorium.As Human Rights Watch pointed out at the end of August:

"There
is no doubt that Iraq still has a serious terrorism problem, but it
also has a huge problem with torture and unfair trials," said Joe Stork,
deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The lack of
transparency around these convictions and executions, in a country where
confessions that may have been coerced are often the only evidence
against a person, makes it crucial for Iraq to declare an immediate
moratorium on all executions."

Human Rights
Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances because it is
unique in its cruelty and finality, and is plagued with arbitrariness,
prejudice, and error.

UN
Special Envoy Martin Kobler: Mr. President, Iraq retains the death
penalty for a large number of crimes. I therefore reiterate the call by
the Secretary-General [Ban Ki-moon] and the High Commissioner of Human
Rights for the government of Iraq to establish a moratorium on all
executions with a view to their abolition. I welcome that the
authorities of the Kurdistan Region continue to implement a moratorium
on carrying out executions which has been in place since 2007.

There's no moratorium on violence, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports,
"A car bomb exploded near an Iraqi army convoy in Baghdad on Thursday
morning , killing at least four people and wounding 11 others, police
said." TheIrish Examiner notes the death toll has risen to 5. Trend News Agency offers,
"The attack occurred in the morning when a booby-trapped car went off
near a convoy of sport utility vehicles (SUV) used by an Iraqi private
security firm, in Baghdad's western district of Mansour, the source said
on condition of anonymity." In addition, Alsumaria notes
an armed attack in Tikrit claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier, 2
corpses discovered outside Tikrit (shot dead, both were Sahwa and they
were brothers -- aka "Awakening," "Sons of Iraq"), 1 assailant/suspect
shot dead at a checkpoint to the nort of Tikrit, and at least 22
arrested in mass arrests today.

Al Mada notes
that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani met with Hamid Majid and others
heading a delegation of the Communist Party yesterday. The discussion
was the ongoing political crisis and stalemate. It was part of
Jalal's listening tour. All Iraq News notes
that the Communist Party issued a statement after the meeting stressing
their support for Talabani and his efforts. The meetings are
ceremonial and can't serve any real purpose. It's not as though the
'stumbling block' isn't known: the Erbil Agreement. Nouri signed the
US-brokered contract. It gave him a second term as prime minister after
the voters decidedly did not. In exchange for the second term, he was
supposed to provide certain things for the blocs. He used the contract
to grab his second term and then refused to honor the contract. That is
what created the current political stalemate. This is known and has
been known for over a year now. There really isn't a need for a
listening tour.

Jalal's a joke. Alsumaria has him saying
that political parties need to be flexible. That's nonsense. Nouri
didn't 'win' a second term as prime minister. He wasn't 'flexible.' He
threw a tantrum and, with the White House supporting him, brought Iraq
to an 8-month standstill (Political Stalemate I). And the White House
didn't support the Constitution. The White House didn't support the
Iraq people. The White House didn't support democracy.

Nouri wasn't 'flexible.' Now the blocs have to be flexible?

I
believe they were 'flexible' when they surrendered to the Erbil
Agreement giving Nouri a second term. No one asked the Iraqi people if
they wanted their votes tossed aside.

That was
'flexible' enough. It's time for the Erbil Agreement to be honored.
And since the White House staked the US government's word on that
contract, it is past time for the White House to call for it's
implementation.

Lastly on 'flexible,' let's remember that
the White House tried to big-boy Jalal out of the presidency. They
tried to give it to Ayad Allwai. Jalal wasn't 'flexible.' He blew them
off. Maybe Jalal really doesn't have standing to ask others to be
'flexible'?

Jalal's not the only one meeting. All Iraq News notes
that Ibrahim al-Jaafari (head of the National Alliance) and Ammar
al-Hakim (head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq) met today. For
what reasons? Apparently to discuss facial tissues and tissue boxes --
check out the picture, I'm counting five tables (including the one
with the lamp) and each one has a tissue box on it. Did Kleenex sponsor
the meeting? All Iraq News also notes
that al-Hakim held court in his office in the weekly cultural forum
insisting that something must be done about the security situation and
noting that last month saw the deaths of 365 people in Iraq with another
683 injured. This may make Ammar al-Hakim the only political figure in
Iraq to note the death toll from last month. Dar Addustour notes
that the UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy to Iraq Martin Kobler
issued a statement decrying the increased violence and calling on the
government to address the root causes of the instability.

Followers

About Me

I'm Michael, Mike to my friends. College student working his way through. I'm also Irish-American and The New York Times can kiss my Irish ass. And check out Trina's Kitchen on my links, that's my mother's site.